Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Derek Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Compilation Quotient (CQ): A Metric for the Compilation Hardness of Programming Languages Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:28:18 +0100 Organization: Compilers Central Sender: johnl%iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <24-06-009@comp.compilers> References: <24-06-003@comp.compilers> <24-06-005@comp.compilers> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="54806"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: parse, semantics, comment Posted-Date: 11 Jun 2024 03:26:51 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <24-06-005@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3575 John, > [I had two other thoughts. One was that you can tell C was written when > parsing was still hard enough that you didn't want to bulk the parsers > up with semantic stuff. The other was that in the languages where it is > hard to write a valid problem, how much more likely is it that the program > actually works once you get it to compile? -John] C was created after Algol 68, whose 2-level grammar contained syntax+semantics. Algol 68 programs automatically generated from the language grammar should compile just fine. I suspect that output would be rare, because generating the code needed to produce output would be uncommon, and the path to it being the end result of a drunkards walk. C had a kind-of conventional grammar, where-as Algol 68 grammar is certainly not conventional (it might even be unique). [I never heard of any other language using VW-grammars. In C's defense, the early compilers -John]